Abstract
Much is known about the differences in expressiveness and succinctness between nondeterministic and deterministic automata on infinite words. Much less is known about the relative succinctness of the different classes of nondeterministic automata. For example, while the best translation from a nondeterministic Büchi automaton to a nondeterministic co-Büchi automaton is exponential, and involves determinization, no super-linear lower bound is known. This annoying situation, of not being able to use the power of nondeterminism, nor to show that it is powerless, is shared by more problems, with direct applications in formal verification.
In this paper we study a family of problems of this class. The problems originate from the study of the expressive power of deterministic Büchi automata: Landweber characterizes languages L ⊆ Σω that are recognizable by deterministic Büchi automata as those for which there is a regular language R ⊆ Σ* such that L is the limit of R; that is, w ∈L iff w has infinitely many prefixes in R. Two other operators that induce a language of infinite words from a language of finite words are co-limit, where w ∈L iff w has only finitely many prefixes in R, and persistent-limit, where w ∈L iff almost all the prefixes of w are in R. Both co-limit and persistent-limit define languages that are recognizable by deterministic co-Büchi automata. They define them, however, by means of nondeterministic automata. While co-limit is associated with complementation, persistent-limit is associated with universality. For the three limit operators, the deterministic automata for R and L share the same structure. It is not clear, however, whether and how it is possible to relate nondeterministic automata for R and L, or to relate nondeterministic automata to which different limit operators are applied. In the paper, we show that the situation is involved: in some cases we are able to describe a polynomial translation, whereas in some we present an exponential lower bound. For example, going from a nondeterministic automaton for R to a nondeterministic automaton for its limit is polynomial, whereas going to a nondeterministic automaton for its persistent limit is exponential. Our results show that the contribution of nondeterminism to the succinctness of an automaton does depend upon its semantics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Defining liveness. IPL 21, 181–185 (1985)
Armoni, R., Fix, L., Flaisher, A., Gerth, R., Ginsburg, B., Kanza, T., Landver, A., Mador-Haim, S., Singerman, E., Tiemeyer, A., Vardi, M.Y., Zbar, Y.: The ForSpec temporal logic: A new temporal property-specification logic. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) ETAPS 2002 and TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 211–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Beer, I., Ben-David, S., Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Gringauze, A., Rodeh, Y.: The temporal logic Sugar. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 363–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Boigelot, B., Jodogne, S., Wolper, P.: On the use of weak automata for deciding linear arithmetic with integer and real variables. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 611–625. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Büchi, J.R.: On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic. In: Proc. International Congress on Logic, Method, and Philosophy of Science. 1960, Stanford, pp. 1–12 (1962)
Clarke, E.M., Bierea, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 7–34 (2001)
Accellera Organization Inc, http://www.accellera.org
Krishnan, S.C., Puri, A., Brayton, R.K.: Deterministic ω-automata vis-a-vis deterministic Büchi automata. In: Du, D.-Z., Zhang, X.-S. (eds.) ISAAC 1994. LNCS, vol. 834, pp. 378–386. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Kupferman, O., Morgenstern, G., Murano, A.: Typeness for ω-regular automata. In: Wang, F. (ed.) ATVA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3299, pp. 324–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Kupferman, O., Safra, S., Vardi, M.Y.: Relating word and tree automata. In: Proc. 11th LICS, DIMACS, pp. 322–333 (June 1996)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: On bounded specifications. In: Nieuwenhuis, R., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2250, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: From linear time to branching time. ACM TOCL 6(2), 273–294 (2005)
Kurshan, R.P.: Computer Aided Verification of Coordinating Processes. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)
Landweber, L.H.: Decision problems for ω–automata. Mathematical Systems Theory 3, 376–384 (1969)
Löding, C.: Optimal bounds for the transformation of omega-automata. In: Pandu Rangan, C., Raman, V., Ramanujam, R. (eds.) FST TCS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1738, pp. 97–109. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Löding, C.: Efficient minimization of deterministic weak omega-automata. IPL 79(3), 105–109 (2001)
McNaughton, R.: Testing and generating infinite sequences by a finite automation. I& C 9, 521–530 (1966)
Meyer, A.R., Fischer, M.J.: Economy of description by automata, grammars, and formal systems. In: Proc. 12th SSAT, pp. 188–191 (1971)
Michel, M.: Complementation is more difficult with automata on infinite words. CNET, Paris (1988)
Miyano, S., Hayashi, T.: Alternating finite automata on ω-words. TCS 32, 321–330 (1984)
Rabin, M.O.: Decidability of second order theories and automata on infinite trees. Transaction of the AMS 141, 1–35 (1969)
Safra, S.: On the complexity of ω-automata. In: Proc. 29th FOCS, pp. 319–327 (1988)
Safra, S., Vardi, M.Y.: On ω-automata and temporal logic. In: Proc. 21st ACM STOC, pp. 127–137 (1989)
Sistla, A.P.: Safety, liveness and fairness in temporal logic. Formal Aspects of Computing 6, 495–511 (1994)
Thomas, W.: Automata on infinite objects. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 133–191 (1990)
Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Reasoning about infinite computations. I& C 115(1), 1–37 (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Aminof, B., Kupferman, O. (2006). On the Succinctness of Nondeterminism. In: Graf, S., Zhang, W. (eds) Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis. ATVA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4218. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11901914_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11901914_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-47237-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47238-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)